Guddi @ Joginder Kaur vs Jagtar Singh & Others on 24 December, 2008

        IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                             RSA No.1981 of 2005
                             Date of decision: December 24, 2008

Guddi @ Joginder Kaur                           ... Appellant

                           Versus

Jagtar Singh & others                           ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
          with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate
          for the appellant.

           Mr. P. K. Palli, Sr. Advocate
           with Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate
           for the respondents.
                                   ***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)

This appeal has been filed against the judgments and

decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents

for specific performance of two agreements to sell dated

24.05.1978 and 15.06.1979.

The Courts below have also relied upon the earlier

litigation with regard to this very agreement. That litigation

related to a suit against the appellants for restraining them from

alienating the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant

has mainly argued that the respondents had taken the land from

him on Chakota and by taking advantage of his simple

mindedness, got his thumb impressions on 3 or 4 papers and

what was represented to him as Chakotanama was turned into
RSA No.1981 of 2005 -2-

two agreements for sale dated 24.05.1978 and 15.06.1979.

The primary plank of his argument is that an

application was moved by the appellant for correction of Khasra

Girdawari and in those proceedings the respondent had admitted

that he was in possession of the land in dispute as Chakotedar,

while in the plaint it was mentioned that respondent had entered

into possession under the agreement dated 24.05.1978 Ex. P-1.

This circumstance has been quite adequately considered in the

earlier judgment Ex. D-21. Even though the said judgment may

not construe res judicata yet the evidence & findings recorded

therein cannot be washed away either. Learned counsel has

referred me extensively to the pleadings and the evidence in the

Courts below. Few things which clearly emerge are, that the

documents Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-3 have not been typed on the same

machine; admitted thumb impressions of the appellant on Ex.P-3

are in two different inks; Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4 are the thumb

impressions/signatures of the parties on the register of the sale

deed writer and they also appear to be signed on different dates.

All this tends to falsify the version of the appellant that the

respondents had obtained his thumb impression on all the

documents while he was sitting in the Gurudwara.

Learned counsel has also argued that the agreements

were of the year 1978 and 1979 but suit was filed in the year

1994. To counter this, the respondent draws support from the

recital in Ex. P-3 that the sale deed would be executed within

one month of the conclusion of the litigation regarding the land in
RSA No.1981 of 2005 -3-

dispute.

However, I am not able to accept the assertion

regarding contemporaneous execution of Ex. P-1 to P-4, and thus

hold that the findings of fact of the Courts below cannot be held

to be perverse or not arising from the material on record.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

December 24, 2008                         (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                         JUDGE